Whether the representative director is actually representative director

The plaintiff is only a representative director under the name of the non-party company, such as the plaintiff's signature is not affixed to the settlement document inside the non-party company and the fact that the plaintiff was paid benefits while working as a daily worker during the taxation period in this case. Therefore, the actual representative director must be imposed a comprehensive income tax

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 226,367,380 on March 12, 2004 against the Plaintiff and KRW 146,96,370 on global income for the year 200, respectively, shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal;

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The non-party ○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “non-party ○○○”) is a corporation that runs a construction business, and the plaintiff was registered as a representative director in the corporate register of the non-party 1 from June 17, 1998 to August 30, 201.

B. During February 199 and January 5, 200, the head of ○○ Tax Office having jurisdiction over the location of the non-party company: (a) received a processing tax invoice of KRW 546,244,000 (including value-added tax, KRW 304,839,000 + KRW 241,451,000) from data merchants, the non-party company received a total of KRW 546,244,00 from the non-party company's trade, etc. during the period of 209 and 2000; and (b) appropriated the amount as a processing cost; and (c) disposed of the amount as bonus to the plaintiff who was registered as the representative director of the non-party company at the same time, and then notified the non-party company of the change

C. On March 12, 2004, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of the global income tax of KRW 226,367,380, and global income tax of KRW 146,96,370 for the year 200 based on the notice of change in the above amount of income (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Each entry of Gap evidence 1-1 to 3, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 12-1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2-1 to 3

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff was registered on the name of the representative director of the non-party company, but did not participate in the management of the non-party company, and the disposition of income in this case, which deemed that the amount in the tax invoice of this case was reverted to the plaintiff although the non-party ○ was actually managed by the non-party company, was unlawful,

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On August 31, 1994, the new company established and operated the non-party ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. with the location of ○○○○-dong, ○○○-dong, and its purpose as a soil construction business, etc., and closed the company on September 30, 1998.

Accordingly, on November 26, 1997, ○○○-dong, ○○○○-dong, ○○○○○○-dong, i.e., the location of ○○ Construction Company, established the non-party company (the trade name at the time of incorporation was changed to the non-party company, but the trade name was changed to the non-party company on February 26, 200). As the non-party company cannot be appointed as the representative director due to the relationship that was a person with bad credit standing at the time, the Plaintiff, who was close to the construction relationship, was entrusted with the nominal representative director at the request of the Plaintiff, was registered as the non-party company’s representative director.

(2) The Plaintiff did not participate in the management of the non-party company at all due to the absence of attendance at the non-party company, and the new ○○ concluded the construction contract as the representative of the non-party company, and approved the deposit sheet in the name of the company and the

(3) During the period of registration as the representative director of the non-party company, the plaintiff worked as a daily worker of the non-party company ○○○-dong, Seoul, ○○-dong, and was transferred KRW 16,90,000 to 18 times through the deposit account in the name of the plaintiff, from September 11, 1998 to April 11, 200, while working as the non-party company ○○○-dong, Seoul, ○○-dong, ○○○-○○, the plaintiff was transferred from ○○○○, a company from September 11, 1998 to 11, 200. The plaintiff was employed as the head of the Housing Redevelopment Association in Seoul, ○○-dong, ○○-dong, from

On the other hand, the plaintiff did not receive all benefits from the non-party company during the registration period as representative director.

(4) While working as the head of a housing redevelopment association, the Plaintiff demanded the new ○○○ to change the representative director of the company, and on August 30, 2001, the representative director of the non-party company changed to the non-party ○○, who is the punishment of the non-party 1.

(5) In the name of the non-party company, each written estimate drawn up on June 2001 and September 7, 2002, each written subcontract drawn up around June 2001, and each written subcontract drawn up around February 2000, new ○○ is indicated as the representative director of each non-party company, and the subcontract drawn up around May 200 and the written subcontract drawn up on February 1, 2001 as well as the written contract drawn up on February 1, 2001, each of the non-party company’s new ○ is indicated as the guarantor of each non-party company.

Each evidence, evidence of No. 2, evidence No. 1, 2, and 8, evidence No. 9-1 through 3, evidence No. 10-2, evidence No. 11-1 through 25, each of evidence No. 13, evidence No. 14-1, evidence No. 15-17, evidence No. 6, each of evidence No. 13, and evidence No. 15-17, evidence No. 6, witness No. 1 of the court below, witness No. 0, and witness No. 000, the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

Article 106 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17457 of Dec. 31, 2001) provides that the corporate tax law does not provide for the basis of the fact that the actual income has been attributed to the representative, but it is highly probable that the actual income would have been attributed to the representative in light of the fact that the actual income would have been attributed to the representative in cases where the income of a corporation leaked out of the city is unclear, and that it can prevent any tax evasion and evasion of the corporation by imposing tax on the representative's income. Thus, in light of the purpose of legislation and the contents of the provision in the Enforcement Decree, the representative shall be the representative who actually operates the corporation, and even if the representative was registered in the corporate register, if the representative did not actually operate the corporation, such recognized income shall not be imposed on the representative (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu171688, Mar. 8, 1994; 208Nu198384.

According to the above legal principles, the plaintiff was registered on the register of shareholders as holding 7,50 shares of the non-party company during the period from 1998 to 2001 as holding 7,500 shares (30% shares) of the non-party company during the period of 1998 to 2001, and the non-party company's name in the column of endorser of promissory notes that the plaintiff was designated as the representative director, but it is recognized that the name of the non-party company in the column of endorser of the non-party company in the face of promissory notes that the non-party company received as the payment for the work, but it can be known by the above facts. In other words, although the plaintiff was registered as the representative director of the non-party company, the plaintiff did not participate in the management of the non-party company while working as the employee or the head of the redevelopment association of the non-party company, and the actual management of the non-party company seems to have been a new ○○.

Therefore, the disposition of income that was conducted against the plaintiff, not the actual representative of the non-party company, is erroneous, and the disposition of this case based on it is illegal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.